Can The Atheist Account For Reason?

[Guest]

You mean that the forces of nature that created biological life were rational, intentional - thinking? How so?

It might be conducive to discussion if you were to post the context of the definition of rational that you are using in order to avoid confusion.

Concering our discussion, rational is that which thinks, intends and acts. So when I say the non-rational forces of nature I mean non-thinking, unintentional, not acting with intention - not rational... That the atheist must assume that the non-rational created it's exact opposite - the rational.

[Guest]

Concering our discussion, rational is that which thinks, intends and acts. So when I say the non-rational forces of nature I mean non-thinking, unintentional, not acting with intention - not rational... That the atheist must assume that the non-rational created it's exact opposite - the rational.

In no way does your definition fit ANY of the commonly accepted dictionary definitions, nor does it fit any philosophical definition.

Where did you get such a definition?

The opposite of rational is irrational, not non-rational.

[Guest]

Asimov, I think "non-rational" is a proper antonym of "rational." The term "non-rational" applies to anything that is not rational, whereas the term "irrational" is limited to certain kinds of processes that violate the rules of rationality. A tree is non-rational, but it certainly isn't irrational.

Regards,

CThomas

[Guest]

Asimov, I think "non-rational" is a proper antonym of "rational." The term "non-rational" applies to anything that is not rational, whereas the term "irrational" is limited to certain kinds of processes that violate the rules of rationality. A tree is non-rational, but it certainly isn't irrational.

Regards,

CThomas

James is strictly saying that things that do not have the faculties of reason gave rise to things that do....I don't see how it is contradictory or implausible to think that.

[Guest]

Asimov, I think "non-rational" is a proper antonym of "rational." The term "non-rational" applies to anything that is not rational, whereas the term "irrational" is limited to certain kinds of processes that violate the rules of rationality. A tree is non-rational, but it certainly isn't irrational.

Regards,

CThomas

James is strictly saying that things that do not have the faculties of reason gave rise to things that do....I don't see how it is contradictory or implausible to think that.

First, they are contradictory in the sense that they create their opposite. Second, can you give an example with out begging the question with the evolutionary process? Third, I think I gave good reason why we should not expect said evolutionary process to produce necessarily true or rational thought.

[Guest]

First, they are contradictory in the sense that they create their opposite.

No, that is not a contradiction.

Second, can you give an example with out begging the question with the evolutionary process? Third, I think I gave good reason why we should not expect said evolutionary process to produce necessarily true or rational thought.

No, I can't give an example.

What was your reason?

[Guest]

First, they are contradictory in the sense that they create their opposite.

No, that is not a contradiction.

Second, can you give an example with out begging the question with the evolutionary process? Third, I think I gave good reason why we should not expect said evolutionary process to produce necessarily true or rational thought.

No, I can't give an example.

What was your reason?

Hello again Asimov.

1. Why is it not contradictory? And since you can not offer an example I feel justified in stating so.

2. I gave my reasons in this thread. What exactly do you take exception to? In a nut shell, there is no reason to expect the evolutionary process to produce truth or rational thought. It would only care about what works. What confers advantage. And if irrational thought confered advantage (see my example of the tiger) it would be acceptable for survival. The evolutionary process could care less...

[Guest]

Hello again Asimov.

1. Why is it not contradictory? And since you can not offer an example I feel justified in stating so.

Argument from ignorance. You are not justified because I can't prove you wrong.

A contradiction is a logical term when a statement asserts and denies the same thing.

"It is raining and not raining at the same time".

If you're actually suggesting that processes that are non-rational cannot create being that have the faculties of reason because they are creating their opposite, then why is it true that beings with the faculties of reason can create their opposite? Would that not entail a contradiction, by your own logic?

2. I gave my reasons in this thread.

Where?

In a nut shell, there is no reason to expect the evolutionary process to produce truth or rational thought.

There's no reason to expect evolutionary processes to produce anything but what they have produced. That is putting the cart before the horse, to expect sentient beings to come about.

Sentient beings exist, now we are trying to explain how that happened, and the possible processes that led us to become sentient.

Unless you have an actual contradiction, the theory still stands.

It would only care about what works. What confers advantage. And if irrational thought confered advantage (see my example of the tiger) it would be acceptable for survival. The evolutionary process could care less...

Being rational works, because rationality is non-contradictory identification. A being who is entirely irrational does not survive, because he has no ability to discern the nature of reality.

Evolution isn't a sentient being who cares about anything. It's a process. Beings that have traits that offer a survival advantage pass on those traits to their offspring. What's the problem?

[Guest]

Hello again Asimov.

1. Why is it not contradictory? And since you can not offer an example I feel justified in stating so.

Argument from ignorance. You are not justified because I can't prove you wrong.

A contradiction is a logical term when a statement asserts and denies the same thing.

"It is raining and not raining at the same time".

You do agree that non-rational forces are creating their opposite - rational minds? Correct? And it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from observed facts.

If you're actually suggesting that processes that are non-rational cannot create being that have the faculties of reason because they are creating their opposite, then why is it true that beings with the faculties of reason can create their opposite? Would that not entail a contradiction, by your own logic?

No, because we are going from higher to lower. Rational minds creating lower non-rational things. Rationality and intentionality can by nature create. This is observable. You have yet to offer an example that the opposite is possible...

2. I gave my reasons in this thread.

Where?

Post Seven

In a nut shell, there is no reason to expect the evolutionary process to produce truth or rational thought.

There's no reason to expect evolutionary processes to produce anything but what they have produced. That is putting the cart before the horse, to expect sentient beings to come about.

Sentient beings exist, now we are trying to explain how that happened, and the possible processes that led us to become sentient.

Unless you have an actual contradiction, the theory still stands.

And you have yet to show that non-rational forces can or did create rational minds. My position depends on what is observed. Then you have another problem. At some point non-rational matter began to actually "think." So the question is - at that point of "thinking" how was the matter different than it was the moment before - when it was not thinking?

It would only care about what works. What confers advantage. And if irrational thought confered advantage (see my example of the tiger) it would be acceptable for survival. The evolutionary process could care less...

Being rational works, because rationality is non-contradictory identification. A being who is entirely irrational does not survive, because he has no ability to discern the nature of reality.

Again, see post seven and my Tiger example. Irrational reactions can and would confer advantage

Evolution isn't a sentient being who cares about anything. It's a process. Beings that have traits that offer a survival advantage pass on those traits to their offspring. What's the problem

So a near universal false belief in a god or gods confered advantage? This irrational belief had survival advantage?

[Guest]

You do agree that non-rational forces are creating their opposite - rational minds? Correct? And it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from observed facts.

What observed facts?

I am not agreeing on anything, I'm pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.

No, because we are going from higher to lower. Rational minds creating lower non-rational things. Rationality and intentionality can by nature create. This is observable. You have yet to offer an example that the opposite is possible...

Semantic dingos kidneys, and special pleading.

You stated that non-rational things creating rational things is contradictory because they are creating their opposite, not because we are going from some undefined "higher being" being created by "lower beings". Rationality doesn't create anything, it serves the purpose of being consistent with reality.

Intention can create, but it can also destroy, just as processes with no intention can create (snowflakes - for instance) and can destroy (a volcanic blast).

By all means, show me the observable facts where an intentional being is guiding the process of human development.

We observe nature creating rational beings all the time. All humans do is have sex (which unintentional beings do all the time), nature takes it's course and a new life forms, all without the need of intention.

I only have to point out that it is not a contradiction for non-rational processes to create rational beings and the possibility exists.

And you have yet to show that non-rational forces can or did create rational minds. My position depends on what is observed. Then you have another problem. At some point non-rational matter began to actually "think." So the question is - at that point of "thinking" how was the matter different than it was the moment before - when it was not thinking?

I don't have to, you claimed it was impossible for non-rational processes to create rational minds. I am rebutting your claim that it is not impossible. I am not asserting anything, you are the one asserting and now you're shifting the burden of proof onto me.

Again, see post seven and my Tiger example. Irrational reactions can and would confer advantage

You have to point out that it is irrational to be afraid of the colour orange. We don't know how this fear manifested itself, we have no information at all regarding this persons thought-processes, only what you say.

That's also assuming that "reactions" are inheritable. Not all behaviours are genetic, otherwise squirrels would not cross the road anymore.

So a near universal false belief in a god or gods confered advantage? This irrational belief had survival advantage?

Beliefs aren't inheritable as genetic traits.